It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge to Trump: No protection for speech inciting violence - Fox News Channel

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed. Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions."It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," Hale wrote.


Fox News Channel - 4/1/2017

What a blast from the past! Judge Hale also decided to allow certain information on the backgrounds of the assailants that they tried to block:



Plaintiffs Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah, and Henry Brousseau allege that they were physically attacked by several members of the audience, including Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger, and an unnamed defendant they have yet to be able to identify.

Bamberger later apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association, whose uniform he wore at the rally. He wrote that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out," according to the lawsuit. Heimbach, for his part, sought to dismiss the lawsuit's discussion of his association with a white nationalist group and of statements he made about how Trump could advance the group's interests.

The judge declined, saying such information could be important context when determining punitive damages.


Yeeouch! That hits some of the strongest stereotypes of Trump supporters right on the head, doesn't it? But, hang on the racist angle only gets worse:



The judge also declined to remove allegations that Nwanguma, an African-American, was the victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from the crowd at the rally. This context may support the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and incitement by Trump and his campaign, the judge said.

"While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred," Hale wrote.


Judge Hale, it should be noted, was an Obama-appointee in 2014. It will be interesting to see how this trial plays out, and whether President Trump will have to testify or not.

However it turns out, these are sad divisive times in our country's history.



This is full of holes whatever the political disposition of the accused. It is illegal in most places to disrupt a legal public gathering. Victim could be held accountable for a fair measure of the liability.

Not to mention that establishing A SUPPOSITION about the alleged to justify moving the case along when their is really ZERO proof or legal justification or necessity to do so is simply political court, to trump up the outcome on a simple assult charge at best. They are wanting so badly to call it a hate crime and smear all but have no real legal basis that is germain to the charges.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


Nope, not even close.

Every Constitutional right has limits. One of the limits on speech is when it causes or directs imminent harm to others:

Schneck v. United States (1919), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

More freeloading from useless liberal s--tb---.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Yeah, it's a misdemeanor in KY. That's a separate issue to the civil action.

There's plenty of evidence. Mr. Trump was exhorting violent actions from the podium, on video recording.

As to the rest of your legal opinion, I guess we'll see.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: gimcrackery
a reply to: Gryphon66

More freeloading from useless liberal s--tb---.


Freeloading?

Because they're seeking justice in an American court of law?

Sounds unpatriotic to me.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.


Perpetrators had no right to assault, either.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

It is illegal in most places to disrupt a legal public gathering.


Can you show proof that your interpretation of disruption is the same as having a differing opinion? Also while you're at it, can you qualify that people having shown up at a Trump rally who aren't Trump supporters instantly equates to disruption? Aren't those also free speech concerns?



Victim could be held accountable for a fair measure of the liability.



Only if they, too, were found culpable for inciting violence.



Not to mention that establishing A SUPPOSITION about the alleged to justify moving the case along when their is really ZERO proof or legal justification or necessity to do so is simply political court, to trump up the outcome on a simple assult charge at best.


What are you talking about?



They are wanting so badly to call it a hate crime and smear all but have no real legal basis that is germain to the charges.


Maybe, maybe not. But if it IS a hate crime, do you think it should be seen as one? I mean at some point a duck is actually a duck.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Gryphon66

And yet you did the exact thing in your OP



Yeeouch! That hits some of the strongest stereotypes of Trump supporters right on the head, doesn't it?


The Judge noted the racist implications of the actions of the crowd TCKL, not me.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.


No one encroached on anyone's right to assemble. What are you talking about?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.


Perpetrators had no right to assault, either.



Here is the thing though dude. That all amounts to assault charges not political assault charges. As much a some would like it.

How much pity do you think the court would have on someone going to a Black Panther event an yelling the N word with a bull horn?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Doesnt matter which side theyre on . If their speach incites /causes violence throw their asses under the jail for the next 20 years .

Maybe then theyll learn theres civilised ways to do things without inciting / resorting to violence .



Sounds civilized.


Sounds civilized to stand up against violence used for political means?

I agree. Wherever and whenever it is found. Violence is not a political tool in our country.


You ever hear of plain clothes security? Ive worked as one before myself. this judge is overstepping his bounds to make apolitical point.

Also Trump didnt tell that man to smack the person being taken away.
edit on 17000000ppam by yuppa because: clarification



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.


No one encroached on anyone's right to assemble. What are you talking about?



I am forever stunned by the level of apparent ........you cant disrupt an event like this. It is an encroachment on right to assembly and speech. What planet are you from?
edit on 2-4-2017 by Logarock because: n



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.


Perpetrators had no right to assault, either.



Here is the thing though dude. That all amounts to assault charges not political assault charges. As much a some would like it.



LOL first off, there is no such thing as "political assault charges". So, assault is assault.



How much pity do you think the court would have on someone going to a Black Panther event an yelling the N word with a bull horn?


So are you claiming that's what happened here? The equivalent of that? Show us please....



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.


No one encroached on anyone's right to assemble. What are you talking about?



I am forever stunned by the level of apparent ........you cant disrupt an event like this. It is an encroachment on right to assembly and speech. What planet are you from?


So, ok, you just think anyone with a differing opinion should be silenced.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


This sort of thinking is what turns a court of law into a Kangaroo court.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Doesnt matter which side theyre on . If their speach incites /causes violence throw their asses under the jail for the next 20 years .

Maybe then theyll learn theres civilised ways to do things without inciting / resorting to violence .



Sounds civilized.


Sounds civilized to stand up against violence used for political means?

I agree. Wherever and whenever it is found. Violence is not a political tool in our country.


You ever hear of plain clothes security? Ive worked as one before myself. this judge is overstepping his bounds to make apolitical point.

Also Trump didnt tell that man to smack the person being taken away.


It's not a political point to hold people accountable for assault.

Why yes, I have heard of plain clothes security. If you had read the Fox article, you'd know that doesn't apply in this case.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.


Perpetrators had no right to assault, either.



Here is the thing though dude. That all amounts to assault charges not political assault charges. As much a some would like it.

How much pity do you think the court would have on someone going to a Black Panther event an yelling the N word with a bull horn?


The only folks yelling the N word in this circumstances were the Trump audience members who were allegedly committing assault.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.


You're delusional if you believe holding someone accountable for inciting violence is tantamount to an attack on free speech. What about the protesters he had removed? Where is your concern for their freedom of speech? Were they being violent?


The right to assemble is being disrupted here by the "victim". Its against the law in most places. Cant disrupt a private or even public legal event. Just cant. "victim" had no free speech rights here.


No one encroached on anyone's right to assemble. What are you talking about?



I am forever stunned by the level of apparent ........you cant disrupt an event like this. It is an encroachment on right to assembly and speech. What planet are you from?


So, ok, you just think anyone with a differing opinion should be silenced.



Not to the point that I would go to one of their political events and try talking over the speaker. Thats what we have here.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join